If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Terraced steps too the water will lead people too it and they will go in. Blocks in water and renderings show people on block and in water.....??

Hopefully the waterfall feature (if included), will face the park, and be of subsequent scale to provide that white noise. That little water fountain on the NW corner of Jasper and 99 street looks stupid.

Impact man! The current plan is blah! The sausage park in Mundare is more exciting,,,,,,,

Hah! I'm from just outside Mundare to begin with Best damn sausage on the planet Mundare pride, yo!

With the River valley so close I just don't understand the argument that our downtown is some kind of urban wasteland. Another park might be nice, but its hardly a necessity to break up downtown...especially give how they basically sit fallow for most of the year given our climate.

Oh, you mean like mobility impaired people who can't use the stairs or the paths down into it? That would be individuals who don't have say, a mobility scooter (or one that can go up inclines...I have to admit I don't know that much about them), but are still walking but with assistance. Yeah, I could see that being hard for them.

And the river valley is no excuse for the rest of downtown to be a concrete jungle and lacking in greenspace.

Actually, it kind of is. It may not be a good excuse and that is why we debate about it (such as the value of the greenspace versus more dense development) but it is an excuse.

There are lots of communities next to the river valley that have parks, community league spaces, school yards, etc. For downtown to be livable, it is no exception regarding greenspace. There is a lot of urban planning reasoning for this.

With the River valley so close I just don't understand the argument that our downtown is some kind of urban wasteland. Another park might be nice, but its hardly a necessity to break up downtown...especially give how they basically sit fallow for most of the year given our climate.

Neighborhood amenities such as parks are viral to strong inclusive communities. Green space, community gardens, art, meeting places are needed in more areas of the core, this will help with that.

"Parks and open spaces are key to building a more environmentally and socially
sustainable downtown. Greenery provided through parks helps to soften the hard edges of the urban downtown environment. Vegetation helps to remove airborne pollutants resulting in a cleaner Downtown. Most importantly, parks and plazas provide a venue for social interaction. They represent venue space for festivals and markets, special areas to enjoy physical activity, to catch up with friends and neighbours, to walk your dog, or simply to rest in quiet contemplation, all of which is especially important for Downtown residents that typically have little or no outdoor space of their own." - page 115

Is this what you are referring to?

There are lots of communities next to the river valley that have parks, community league spaces, school yards, etc. For downtown to be livable, it is no exception regarding greenspace. There is a lot of urban planning reasoning for this.

Well, there are greenspaces. The question is kind of how close does it have to be for the goals it wants to achieve. "Liveable" is kind of too vague to be useful for figuring out what is necessary to achieve the goals behind the park development.

Neighborhood amenities such as parks are viral to strong inclusive communities. Green space, community gardens, art, meeting places are needed in more areas of the core, this will help with that.

Sure, but I'm talking about the particular placement of a park. If there was no greenspace downtown, I'd agree that a park is required...but there is greenspace, so the question is whether this parks benefits outweigh the opportunity costs.

Your point would appear to be that there are green spaces downtown, and therefore more are not needed. So again, what green spaces are you referring to specifically in the central business or warehouse districts?

Your point would appear to be that there are green spaces downtown, and therefore more are not needed.

Wrong. Its that there is plenty of available greenspace nearby, so we need to really ask if the opportunity cost of other development there is worth the cost of a park that will primarily be used in the summer (to whatever degree it is used). Parks can be good development (and are better than parking lots), but that doesn't mean that they are necessary every certain number of steps apart. In our climate, the River Valley is a much more useful greenspace than an urban park in terms of use. That doesn't mean that an urban park isn't useful, but its not self-evident in every case.

So again, what green spaces are you referring to specifically in the central business or warehouse districts?

The river valley. I wrote that already.

But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan and generally a surprising number of trees all around downtown.

But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan

And hey, you know what? Most of these downtown parks you listed are well used during nice weather. People sit outside in the sun during their lunch breaks, hot dog vendor do a brisk business, community events take place. In these spaces, kids play, senior citizens socialize with each other, young ladies sunbathe, residents walk their dogs, and cyclists take a break. Basically, the type of downtown street life that many people are advocating.

“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

'But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan and generally a surprising number of trees all around downtown.'

-bhp decent space that needs some love
-melcor is not a park and will be developed.
-Churchill?
-hotel Mac is not a park and owned by procura
-not sure about you, but 104ave is not exactly the nicest place to relax.

The difference I think we are stating is the difference between nature space, and urban park space. They are both parks, but serving different purposes. I think you are both arguing for the same thing, but the criteria are different.

^yes you are partly true. But some of this is just education on good urban planning best practices.

A few other points:
- the last 10 years of drought and disease has killed off a lot of downtown urban trees and not being replaced as fast as they are dying
- the greenspace/park we are advocating for will partly be a community league endeavor, like every other neighbourhood in the city
- this, and the larger 'district' park in the Warehouse Campus Area are named as catalyst projects in the downtown plan for a reason. (Items we hope Council will support for CRL funding this week)

^To be fair, will be a bit of both. Hope to have some 'quiet' green space, as well as area for community league garden. There will be a plaza up front connecting to the LRT, and maybe even a dog run for downtown dogs.

- the greenspace/park we are advocating for will partly be a community league endeavor, like every other neighbourhood in the city
- this, and the larger 'district' park in the Warehouse Campus Area are named as catalyst projects in the downtown plan for a reason. (Items we hope Council will support for CRL funding this week)

Every neighbourhood outside of downtown has at least one park catered to all ages, with a playground for kids, maybe an outdoor soccor or baseball field, and water features/toys. Rossdale, Mccauley, and Oliver are distinct neighbourhoods. It's a long distance over several major roads for a family from, say, the Icon buildings walking to Kitchener Park or Irene Parlby Park. Downtown could use a multi-purpose park. More people and families are moving downtown. With increased residential in the past 10 years, and the city amending bylaws to make the core friendlier for families, a multi-use park makes sense. On 107th street, it would change the dynamic of downtown. The 105th street park would also improve and bring life to a relatively dead and unexciting street in the core. Both of these can't come fast enough.

We have so many underdeveloped and undeveloped lots in the downtown neighborhood. 2 new parks are not unreasonable.

We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan

And hey, you know what? Most of these downtown parks you listed are well used during nice weather. People sit outside in the sun during their lunch breaks, hot dog vendor do a brisk business, community events take place. In these spaces, kids play, senior citizens socialize with each other, young ladies sunbathe, residents walk their dogs, and cyclists take a break. Basically, the type of downtown street life that many people are advocating.

Ok, that's a bit of a caricature of what goes on but there certainly is some (even lots in some cases) of use of some of those spaces when the weather is good. I don't think I denied that. How does this relate to what I said?

'But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan and generally a surprising number of trees all around downtown.'

You know there is a quote function right?

-bhp decent space that needs some love

Sure.

-melcor is not a park and will be developed.

Not a publicaly owned one, and when?

-Churchill?

Its a big public space, but I thought we were talking green spaces. If you want to include it, we can probably find some others.

-hotel Mac is not a park and owned by procura

So its only a park if publicaly owned?

-not sure about you, but 104ave is not exactly the nicest place to relax.

The difference I think we are stating is the difference between nature space, and urban park space. They are both parks, but serving different purposes. I think you are both arguing for the same thing, but the criteria are different.

Is this directed towards me? Why aren't you using a quote. Why do people on this forum hate the quote function so much?

^yes you are partly true. But some of this is just education on good urban planning best practices.

A few other points:
- the last 10 years of drought and disease has killed off a lot of downtown urban trees and not being replaced as fast as they are dying

Then replace them faster. That is like saying "well, since this other thing that should be done isn't being done we need to do this other thing rather than fix the problem."

- the greenspace/park we are advocating for will partly be a community league endeavor, like every other neighbourhood in the city

Will it? Also, so your issue is unrelated to green space but about building the community league's local control?

- this, and the larger 'district' park in the Warehouse Campus Area are named as catalyst projects in the downtown plan for a reason. (Items we hope Council will support for CRL funding this week)

What is that reason? I think people use the word catalyst in this town because they think it makes money rain from the sky, not because they can particularly demonstrate why it will do what they say. Maybe you can explain why it applies to this park, but the word sure is thrown around a lot without thought.

Every neighbourhood outside of downtown has at least one park catered to all ages, with a playground for kids, maybe an outdoor soccor or baseball field, and water features/toys. Rossdale, Mccauley, and Oliver are distinct neighbourhoods. It's a long distance over several major roads for a family from, say, the Icon buildings walking to Kitchener Park or Irene Parlby Park. Downtown could use a multi-purpose park. More people and families are moving downtown. With increased residential in the past 10 years, and the city amending bylaws to make the core friendlier for families, a multi-use park makes sense. On 107th street, it would change the dynamic of downtown. The 105th street park would also improve and bring life to a relatively dead and unexciting street in the core. Both of these can't come fast enough.

We have so many underdeveloped and undeveloped lots in the downtown neighborhood. 2 new parks are not unreasonable.

Again, I think you are exaggerating, but interesting point about trying to provide a service to families. Maybe a park could be of use in attracting them. Where is the 105th street one going. I think I missed that.

'But since you are shrinking the space being talked about so you can try and make your point better there is also: Beaver Hills Park, that Melcor space on Jasper, the space across the street from city hall, the space in front of the hotel macdonald, the space in front of Grant MacEwan and generally a surprising number of trees all around downtown.'

You know there is a quote function right?

-bhp decent space that needs some love

Sure.

-melcor is not a park and will be developed.

Not a publicaly owned one, and when?

-Churchill?

Its a big public space, but I thought we were talking green spaces. If you want to include it, we can probably find some others.

-hotel Mac is not a park and owned by procura

So its only a park if publicaly owned?

-not sure about you, but 104ave is not exactly the nicest place to relax.

So now the issue is that it isn't where you personally want it?

Plazas/parks that are privately owned are wonderful, but in the case of melcor's lot and 100st/jasper, both have development plans and will be lost in part of full unless something changes.

Enjoy 104ave, I sure don't.

This is about establishing wonderful places for residents, workers, students and visitors. Go to Paris, NYC, London, Dublin, Tokyo, S.F., Van, Tor, Mtl.... etc. etc. etc.... they have plenty of beautiful public spaces/parks that make urban living palatable. They encourage community interaction, romance, play and solitude.

We desperately need more of these spaces and have an abundance of land downtown to forgo the opportunity cost of say a tower on that lot.

In my and many opinions, the real opportunity cost is NOT creating these spaces.

The land was not donated, but rather sold by the Scott Brother's to the City for a reasonable sum. This was purchased to replace the 'park' that was disposed of on the arena lands.

It is not DECL's land, but the City's and DECL is simply heading up the push to get it developed and done so with a lot of community input.

A bit off there... this will be a City park that happens to be in the Downtown Edmonton Community League Boundaries. We will assist in programming/funding of some elements and potentially even some upkeep if there are things such as a community garden.

The land was not donated, but rather sold by the Scott Brother's to the City for a reasonable sum. This was purchased to replace the 'park' that was disposed of on the arena lands.

It is not DECL's land, but the City's and DECL is simply heading up the push to get it developed and done so with a lot of community input.

A bit off there... this will be a City park that happens to be in the Downtown Edmonton Community League Boundaries. We will assist in programming/funding of some elements and potentially even some upkeep if there are things such as a community garden.

Specifically through the 'Partnership in Parks' agreement - ie. DECL or local residents take responsibility to some of the maintenance of the park, especially the garden component. The other option is that a tiny bit of the land is actually leased to DECL as part of the 'Tripartite agreement' between DECL, EFCL and the City for Community League infrastructure.

And Ian is correct. DECL has spearheaded the drive and lobbying effort to see this park developed, with the support and input of area stakeholders, some of which are involved in the Scott Property Park Steering Committee, of which, there is an Public Input Plan (PIP) and fits into the scope and direction of the award-winning Capital City Downtown Plan (CCDP)

Plazas/parks that are privately owned are wonderful, but in the case of melcor's lot and 100st/jasper, both have development plans and will be lost in part of full unless something changes.

Well, I'm more of the I'll believe the development happens when it starts/is complete sort. There have been lots of plans over the years that go quite far along.

Other than that, sure, they'll be gone one day potentially. Not the only green space and certainly not the only public spaces.

Enjoy 104ave, I sure don't.

I walk it all the time, but its a pretty big street. Its problems won't be solved by a park, but the space in front of Grant Mac is ok during the summer. Are you talking about the whole street now?

This is about establishing wonderful places for residents, workers, students and visitors.

That's a nice thought, but doesn't really mean anything.

Go to Paris, NYC, London, Dublin, Tokyo, S.F., Van, Tor, Mtl.... etc. etc. etc.... they have plenty of beautiful public spaces/parks that make urban living palatable.

And we have the river valley and some green space. Maybe one day we should have more or maybe we should have more now in certain spots, but make the argument with respect to Edmonton and stop looking to other communities without taking into context what there is here and how we live here.

I definitely believe another park would be great for downtown. Every community needs a village green; a place for children to play, a place for lovers to walk arm in arm, a place to celebrate, a place to relax. Such a place needs to be at the heart of a community, not on its edge; the river valley presents a grand vista from downtown, but in reality it is on its periphery; its a chore to get to, and there's no one central park to serve as a meeting place, in any event.

I like that when you look a Edmonton from above, it appears to be a sea of green; the mix of tree lined boulevards mixed with parks in the neighbourhoods make a beautiful urban forest. Downtown could use more of that. It's part of the reason why the old station lands stick out in a bad way; to much concrete, and not enough green. Looking towards the future does not mean you have to segregate the natural world to a ribbon through our city; it has always been a part of us, and should continue to be a part of us. The more parks, the better! Just my two cents

No. I'm just not convinced that it is all that with the alternatives especially without other infrastructure (examples schools for families, housing units for them etc...) and given our climate. It seems like we really look to cities that can operate differently than we can too much. I'm not against it, I just don't know that its the best use of the land.

I definitely believe another park would be great for downtown. Every community needs a village green; a place for children to play, a place for lovers to walk arm in arm, a place to celebrate, a place to relax. Such a place needs to be at the heart of a community, not on its edge;

Why? Again, parks have value and use in this city but people seem to be elevating them to a level disproprotionate form their actual use in Edmonton. I've walked or rode my bike in all sorts of weather for years, including through these smaller public spaces and they simply do not have that much use (don't get me wrong, there is some including me)in this city as they do elsewhere. The river valley and other larger greenspaces do, and they tend to as destinations for those using the space for a physical activity (such as us nuts who ride our bikes in the winter).

the river valley presents a grand vista from downtown, but in reality it is on its periphery; its a chore to get to, and there's no one central park to serve as a meeting place, in any event.

I really don't find it a chore. I don't understand how you can live downtown and talk about walkability and suggest 5 to 7 blocks is a chore. Is downtown walkable or not?

I like that when you look a Edmonton from above, it appears to be a sea of green; the mix of tree lined boulevards mixed with parks in the neighbourhoods make a beautiful urban forest. Downtown could use more of that.

Sure. But we're talking about a park here. Also, maybe we could use some more deciduous trees....

It's part of the reason why the old station lands stick out in a bad way; to much concrete, and not enough green.

Too much nothing more like it.

Looking towards the future does not mean you have to segregate the natural world to a ribbon through our city; it has always been a part of us, and should continue to be a part of us. The more parks, the better! Just my two cents

Fair enough. I'd suggest opportunity cost and that there are other ways to get the natural world into the city besides a manicured and landscaped park, but I can't say that more nature is awful.

the river valley presents a grand vista from downtown, but in reality it is on its periphery; its a chore to get to, and there's no one central park to serve as a meeting place, in any event.

I really don't find it a chore. I don't understand how you can live downtown and talk about walkability and suggest 5 to 7 blocks is a chore. Is downtown walkable or not?

Until we get mechanized access to the valley via funicular, its not the horizontal distance, but the vertical that is the barrier. As as a relatively healthy younger individual, I don't have a problem hiking back up from the valley, but even I don't relish slogging up the hill.

I actually live in Oliver, at the top of Victoria Park hill. I love the River Valley, and like being relatively close to Government House Park and the River Valley Road trail. At the same time, I don't get to them nearly as often as I like, because of the time it takes to get down there, down and up the hill. I get much more use out of Grant Notley Park, at the top of Victoria Park Hill, and Victoria Promenade, as I can use them to enjoy some relaxing greenery and sunshine without burning forty-five minutes in travel time on a busy day.

I see a lot of fit younger people using the Valley. Its accessible for those with the ability to get there. At the same time, you'd be surprised at the number of people who drive to the park to use it. At Grant Notley park and Victoria Promenade, I still see the young, but I also see the elderly, the disabled, and even the occasional family with strollers. Without a park at the same elevation as the rest of Oliver, these folks would have to use a car or transit to get to the Valley, and would be much less likely to enjoy some green space.

According to Google Maps, its fifty minute round trip on foot from the proposed park location to either Irene Perlby or Louise McKinney Park. People who live in the Warehouse District and the area of the proposed arena (residents of the Icons, Legacy, upcoming Fox, Ultima,etc) with either accessibility issues or who lack the time to get to the Valley are more likely to use this park.

There's no need for the park to sit idle in the winter, either. Add in a small toboggan hill, and a small water feature/pond/skating rink, and you'll see the park used year round.

You could also add some additional family friendly features, like a playground (nearest playground is all the way over at Grandin school) or a spray park.

Fun community league activities, like winter festival similar to the Alberta Avenue event, or some kind of mini-carnival in the summer, would be an excellent fit for this park.

Until we get mechanized access to the valley via funicular, its not the horizontal distance, but the vertical that is the barrier. As as a relatively healthy younger individual, I don't have a problem hiking back up from the valley, but even I don't relish slogging up the hill.

Really? You honestly see that as a real problem? Also, a funicular would basically direct all traffic to one spot. Doesn't really make sense pretending that is a real solution if getting into the River Valley is actually a real problem .

I actually live in Oliver, at the top of Victoria Park hill.

I also live in that area.

I love the River Valley, and like being relatively close to Government House Park and the River Valley Road trail. At the same time, I don't get to them nearly as often as I like, because of the time it takes to get down there, down and up the hill.

Its much less than it would take you to get to a funicular or walk to a park in the core areas. I honestly do not find it that hard to get down there, especially with all the trails and stairs. I'm kind of mystified by the claim that a funicular so far away would solve this time issue for you.

I get much more use out of Grant Notley Park, at the top of Victoria Park Hill, and Victoria Promenade, as I can use them to enjoy some relaxing greenery and sunshine without burning forty-five minutes in travel time on a busy day.

It takes you 45 minutes to get down there?

I see a lot of fit younger people using the Valley. Its accessible for those with the ability to get there. At the same time, you'd be surprised at the number of people who drive to the park to use it.

Not at all. There are a lot of people who are lazy and or don't live within walking distance and refuse to take public transit to somewhere walkable.

At Grant Notley park and Victoria Promenade, I still see the young, but I also see the elderly, the disabled, and even the occasional family with strollers.

I see those groups plenty in the River Valley. Not sure why you don't.

Without a park at the same elevation as the rest of Oliver, these folks would have to use a car or transit to get to the Valley, and would be much less likely to enjoy some green space.

Well, assuming this barrier to walking down hill is real (which, I content it is not really that big of one), then why would they be much less likely to drive or take transit to those green spaces then walk or drive or take transit to a funicular even further away to avoid a slight incline?

According to Google Maps, its fifty minute round trip on foot from the proposed park location to either Irene Perlby or Louise McKinney Park. People who live in the Warehouse District and the area of the proposed arena (residents of the Icons, Legacy, upcoming Fox, Ultima,etc) with either accessibility issues or who lack the time to get to the Valley are more likely to use this park.

Sure, they might be.

There's no need for the park to sit idle in the winter, either. Add in a small toboggan hill, and a small water feature/pond/skating rink, and you'll see the park used year round.

Will you? Hopefully. Depends on the people in the area and their use patterns. There isn't really a guarantee that will happen.

You could also add some additional family friendly features, like a playground (nearest playground is all the way over at Grandin school) or a spray park.

Sure. And then maybe some schools too right?

Fun community league activities, like winter festival similar to the Alberta Avenue event, or some kind of mini-carnival in the summer, would be an excellent fit for this park.

No. I'm just not convinced that it is all that with the alternatives especially without other infrastructure (examples schools for families, housing units for them etc...) and given our climate. It seems like we really look to cities that can operate differently than we can too much. I'm not against it, I just don't know that its the best use of the land.

We have an abundance of land/lots/parking.... read some of the CCDP information please.

It was a MR (municipal reserve) parcel, never a 'park' and was disposed of.

Not a park, but dedicated as a park for both downtown and Central McDougall when the CN lands were sold. It was determined by both communities and the City that this was not the ideal place for a park in the future and why Scott Property was purchased for downtown.

^You don't have to agree with why the park it going in, but just respect that there are lots of stakeholders in the area supportive and excited for this, and there is urban planning wisdom to why this site was chosen. It's a complicated political history with much work by the community to even get to where we are today.

Things could not be fixed soon enough. I consider the lots marked in red to be the most detrimental to downtown. It's like a black hole, completely barren, it completely kills and dis-joins the area. Things there should be fixed asap, pressure on the land owner or something. Shocking that the entire 107/106 block has been left in this condition so long.

Really? That would be news to us... although we did have a meeting/presentation on Thursday with a few city folk and they did hope to get rezoning and an ESA going sooner than later, but this seems a little too quick.

So the issue is - A staging site is required for the installation of the sewer 'superpipe' under 105 Street from the river to 111 Avenue. There is another pipe that crosses at 102 Avenue.

The City would like to use the SE corner of the proposed park for a staging site - 2 of the 5 lots. Likely for 3 years. Not set in stone, but planners see this site as a 'win' for the City as it won't require purchasing or leasing private land.

We want to be accommodating, but this further delays our park development - some or all of it. We are still confirming. We have mixed feelings about this. Love to save taxpayers some money, but not the best for our community or needs of residents now.

It is something I would personally like and many others who have given us feedback thus far, but the far SEC is needed for a new sewer mega trunk so it might be a while as the City requires a portion of the site for staging.

Maybe a water feature can be funded and maintained by a corporate sponsor. Icelandair Fountain anyone?

In any case, I believe there really needs to be more fountains and water features as part of the beautification of downtown. There's just City Hall/Churchill Square, Legislature, Beaver Hills and that sculpture at Victoria Promenade are all I can think of. Meanwhile there's quite a few park fountains in Toronto and Montreal.

“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012